Photographing children

Brian May wrote:
"Mxsmanic" == Mxsmanic writes:


Mxsmanic How does that make it indecent? Can parents freely take
Mxsmanic pictures of their children's genitals? Does the
Mxsmanic visibility of genitals somehow magically establish
Mxsmanic indecency in and of itself? Does that mean that nudity
Mxsmanic is indecent unconditionally?

Whatever you do, make sure the foot doesn't show...

(my father recently made the accusation that my foot showed through my
sock. Oh no!)

The foot is used for walking. If you take a photo of a child
exhibiting their naked foot, people might assume the child is about to
go walking. Or even worse: running. This is indecent.

It also shows child exploitation by forcing them to exercise. No, the
child may not actually be doing the sinister activity, but the naked
foot is the same thing. No child should be forced to exercise just
because it brings pleasure to inhumane adults (perverts). Imagine what
the child is going to think when they see the photo in 20 years
time. How degrading!

What child would possible want exercise without being forced to by
adults? What adult would possible want to see a child exercise if it
wasn't to satisfy some sort of perverted pleasure?

The fact children can exercise without showing their foot is also
relevant. It means any photo of a child should be treated as
suspicious. Especially if there are a large number of photos. It could
indicate some sort of obscene and highly illegal exercise activity for
children. Sometimes these are even organized by schools.

Even worse is if the foot is swollen, it could indicate too much
exercise. This is very bad. The effects of this much exercise could
effect the child for the rest of his/her life. Especially if
photographed. Anybody seeing a swollen foot on a child (or a photo of
a child) should report it to the police immediately.

The only solution is to make it illegal to create, distribute,
duplicate, process, own, talk-about, write-about, report, destroy and
consume photos containing a naked foot and/or children
walking/running. This is the only way we can protect our children.

;-)

You do realize, don't you, that there is a whole community of people out
there who get turned on by children's FEET. True. Weird, but true.
So, should we outlaw pictures of children that show there feet because a
small group of people get turned on by pictures of children's feet? It
seems to me that some people are more concerned about other people
getting some kind of sexual satisfaction from ANYTHING, than for
concerns for the actual welfare of the children.


--
Ron Hunter

Brian May wrote:
"Ron" == Ron Hunter writes:


Ron Not always. Sometimes the responsible party is the child. A

On one episode of "The bill", a child deliberately seduces her father
while her mother is away for the sole purpose of blackmailing him ("I
will complain you raped me to the police if you don't let me see my
boyfriend"). Description from memory.

Yes, this was fiction.

As another sort twist, I heard a case where somebody was charged for
rape because the women was legally too young, but later married the
"victim". IIRC, the man got a job as a teacher and lost his job when
laws become more strict regarding employment of teachers.

I don't think it is always as black and white as the law tries to make
it.

I am sure you are familiar with the case of the teacher who served 7
years in prison for having sex (she got pregnant twice) with a juvenile
student, and after her release from prison, she and the now adult
'victim' got married. Yes, such strange things do happen, and many
times I feel that the law is getting into areas that just can't be
justly legislated.


--
Ron Hunter

Brian May wrote:
"Ron" == Ron Hunter writes:


Ron Not always. Sometimes the responsible party is the child. A

On one episode of "The bill", a child deliberately seduces her father
while her mother is away for the sole purpose of blackmailing him ("I
will complain you raped me to the police if you don't let me see my
boyfriend"). Description from memory.

Yes, this was fiction.

As another sort twist, I heard a case where somebody was charged for
rape because the women was legally too young, but later married the
"victim". IIRC, the man got a job as a teacher and lost his job when
laws become more strict regarding employment of teachers.

I don't think it is always as black and white as the law tries to make
it.

I am sure you are familiar with the case of the teacher who served 7
years in prison for having sex (she got pregnant twice) with a juvenile
student, and after her release from prison, she and the now adult
'victim' got married. Yes, such strange things do happen, and many
times I feel that the law is getting into areas that just can't be
justly legislated.


--
Ron Hunter

Ron Hunter writes:

Oh, lots. It depends on who you take the pictures of, and how they are
used.

I didn't ask about how they are used. Picture-taking is not _use_ of
pictures, it's just _taking_ pictures. When does _taking_ pictures
bring a 20-year jail term?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Ron Hunter writes:

Oh, lots. It depends on who you take the pictures of, and how they are
used.

I didn't ask about how they are used. Picture-taking is not _use_ of
pictures, it's just _taking_ pictures. When does _taking_ pictures
bring a 20-year jail term?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Ron Hunter writes:

I think I am going to frame that one. It say it all.
Read it again, and think about what you just said.

I worry about it all the time. I wonder if there will be any civil
liberties left twenty years from now, or perhaps even ten years from
now.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Iain Laskey wrote:
In article , ()
wrote:
Let us not forget that during WWII your ancestors had to ask us
pretty please to send arms since you seemed to have gotten rid of
yours.
And you guys so nicely sold some destroyers to us you were about to
scrap. Way to go with the generosity.


Crybaby ingrate talk; you're making a joke, right?

Iain Laskey wrote:
In article , ()
wrote:
Let us not forget that during WWII your ancestors had to ask us
pretty please to send arms since you seemed to have gotten rid of
yours.
And you guys so nicely sold some destroyers to us you were about to
scrap. Way to go with the generosity.


Crybaby ingrate talk; you're making a joke, right?

Dwight Stewart wrote:
Where are all these stories coming from, (snip)



Since some have expressed an interest in actual examples, here are some
court cases, stories, and interesting people, relating to the subject of
photographing children...

http://www.metnews.com/articles/parr040202.htm
http://www.ci.keene.nh.us/police/amirault.html
http://users.rcn.com/kyp/angindex.html
http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct2000/005124.txt
http://www.poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=31608
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-...?msg_id=0069c0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Carroll

Stewart




Well, what I need to do is to being mollified, go ahead and start a
fight, force it into the courts, get a news hound interested so I can
get my name in the lights, thereby providing but one more example of my
constitutional rights under attack by someone that desperately needs to
know about them All of them.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Dwight Stewart wrote:
Where are all these stories coming from, (snip)



Since some have expressed an interest in actual examples, here are some
court cases, stories, and interesting people, relating to the subject of
photographing children...

http://www.metnews.com/articles/parr040202.htm
http://www.ci.keene.nh.us/police/amirault.html
http://users.rcn.com/kyp/angindex.html
http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct2000/005124.txt
http://www.poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=31608
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-...?msg_id=0069c0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Carroll

Stewart




Well, what I need to do is to being mollified, go ahead and start a
fight, force it into the courts, get a news hound interested so I can
get my name in the lights, thereby providing but one more example of my
constitutional rights under attack by someone that desperately needs to
know about them All of them.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'